8 ms·

Essential has sold just 5,000 phones since launch

79 points by rexbee 9y ago

Analemma_ 9y ago
Trying to break in to the high end of the smartphone market as a newcomer is a mistake. That's Apple and Samsung's territory, and they have the muscle to fight you intensely for it. The Chinese manufacturers have the better idea: start with cheap phones, build a user base, and move up. In particular, the camera is the ace in the hole that the established players have. People spending $700 on a phone expect a top-notch camera, and from the reviews it sounds like the Essential Phone isn't cutting it. Unfortunately the camera is the main reason why there won't be any Cinderella stories about new high-end phone makers: Apple, Google and Samsung probably have teams of hundreds working on camera software now that the low-hanging fruit has been plucked, and new companies can't hope to match that.
- X86BSD 9y ago
  Keep in mind Apple was in the same position before the iPhone. Remember what palm said about apple becoming a player in the mobile space? "PC guys are not just going to walk in here and.." And yet they did. How about the phone just sucks? And essential just really has no idea what people want?
  - khazhoux 9y ago
    Palm got upended because their product was not actually that great. It solved a need, for sure, but the core quality was not there. What is iPhone bad at? Where's the entry point for a disruptor?
    - ovao 9y ago
      One could argue that the iPhone is bad at 'openness', but that seems to be a non-factor or at least a negligible factor to at least some very large percentage of consumers.
    - allenbrunson 9y ago
      > What is iPhone bad at? ecosystem lock-in, not allowing un-vetted apps to run, walled-garden approach to everything. based on comments i see here, some people are mad enough about this to avoid iPhones altogether. that's where i'd start, if i were trying to launch a smartphone platform today.
      - Synaesthesia 9y ago
        One can basically level the same charges against Android, and indeed the entire tech industry for having closed source chips, firmware, baseband etc. It’s unfortunate that we’re all so beholden to corporate behemoths and that we don’t have a totally, top-to-bottom free, open and democratic hardware&software in technology.
      - dmitriid 9y ago
        A very wrong and a very short-sighted approach. Other comments have already pointed this out. Two things: - ease of use - privacy These two may sell the product even if it lacks certain features. - ecosystem (as in "do I have an app for that?") This is essential (pun intended), but Essential is already running Android, so they are covered there.
      - bm1362 9y ago
        These things allow iOS to remain relatively secure for end-users while Android continues to be a wasteland of exploits. I'd argue I want my phone to be as secure as possible, more so than my laptop, since it is my authenticator for most of my services. Most end users are satisfied with their iOS devices and don't try and use it as a ssh machine or toolkit. They install Candy Crush and some Google apps at most.
      - xenadu02 9y ago
        And when someone's phone ends up with spyware, bitcoin miners, and they're signed up for 12 different $10/month "premium" SMS text services do you believe they'll be happy to be outside the walled garden? I consider myself a nerd and I find it amazing that some of my fellow nerds learned absolutely nothing from IE and ActiveX: Users will always click Yes/OK/Install/Please_own_me. Providing an "Allow side-loading" checkbox guarantees these people will get completely and utterly owned. The latest free-to-play game will promise a "Chest of Gems" if they check the checkbox. Some spyware purveyors and scummy ad networks are even now prompting iOS users to install mobile provisioning profiles and the users willingly tap through multiple prompts to install them despite the scary warnings! These users end up with MITM VPN profiles installed that redirect all traffic or get extra spam email accounts setup. I enjoy having a gatekeeper that keeps most of the riff-raff out. I haven't always agreed with the decisions but I've never been secretly signed up for a premium SMS plan, had a coin miner installed, had my browsing history or contacts harvested, etc.
    - outside1234 9y ago
      It is behind in terms of what's possible. It just added wireless charging for example. The iPhone X may be their solution to that: charge a super premium price to essentially leapfrog to the next generation and thereby keep the volumes low so they can do things that don't yet scale.
- snaky 9y ago
  'start with cheap, build a user base (and also expertise, people and money flow), and move up' is a common strategy for most of newcomers of any market, the IT history give us IBM mainframes to DEC minis to SUN workstation to IBM personal computers as example.
- david-cako 9y ago
  And that's the thing, the OnePlus One was both "cheap" as well as incredibly high-value in terms of features and performance.
- s73ver_ 9y ago
  Isn't that what Tesla did, though?
  - majormajor 9y ago
    No, basically nobody had expensive luxury electric cars before Tesla. This is more what Faraday Future was trying to do - be late to the game and copy, maybe change a few details to try to marginally improve it. What Tesla did is more like what Apple did - massively expand the "smart phone" segment in the first place. If you compare the Essential phone to a V30, S8, or Pixel, there's nothing anything near the difference of comparing an iPhone to a Nokia N95. Something that is so compelling it makes you not care about the other things the iPhone doesn't have that the Nokia does, like GPS and 3G. Similarly the Model S vs a 7 series: one has more bells and whistles, one is a fundamentally different product that a lot of people not very interested in the old option find much more compelling.
    - s73ver_ 9y ago
      "No, basically nobody had expensive luxury electric cars before Tesla." But high end luxury cars were a thing. Tesla wasn't competing with just electric cars, they were competing with all cars.
      - zaroth 9y ago
        Not initially, no. The all electric drive-train and buying into the future was always the key hook for early adopters. I think a large part of early demand was not because it was the best car for the money, but because it was special, unique, and you believed in Tesla the company and wanted it to succeed.
      - jandrese 9y ago
        Tesla would have gone precisely nowhere with a mass market luxury gas burner. Established brands had that market pretty much locked up and beating them on quality when starting from scratch is basically impossible. Small players in this market have to go to the ultra-niche extremes where you sell like 20 cars a year for millions of dollars per and usually still lose money. The electric drive was the killer feature on the Tesla. Without it the car has no reason to exist. Also, by luxury car standards the interior of a Tesla is absolutely subpar. They were competing against cars with handcrafted mahogany dashboards and precision stitched leather seats where people will spend hours and days fine tuning the static and moving resistance on the heater control knob to get it just perfect.
- Feniks 9y ago
  Has anyone been able to break into the smartphone market lately? I can't imagine beating Xiaomi, Samsung, Apple and the other big billion dollar conglomerates this late in the game without a significant Nobel prize worthy idea.
  - la_oveja 9y ago
    OnePlus has become a pretty big player from zero.
RcouF1uZ4gsC 9y ago
I wonder if the name also hurts. When I see the word "Essential" I think "basic/stripped-down". When I see the price of $699 for an "Essential phone", I think that I might as well get an Apple iPhone, Samsung Galaxy, or Google Pixel.
- svachalek 9y ago
  It's also at odds with the gadgety stick-on camera. I don't think I've ever seen anyone use an add-on camera lens with their phone, much less the black sweater crowd they seem to be calling out with the "Essential" name.
- snaky 9y ago
  Absolutely. Even meaningless random word (like AQVN or something), would be better.
- tryingagainbro 9y ago
  Great point, even though I doubt it hurt. The price self-selects people: Ooopps, apparently no my cup of tea @$900 and back to google search. The "essential" bracket cannot compete with Chinese low-end phones. Oh well, he'll raise money and do something else. The domain name at least will have some resale value.
obilgic 9y ago
I just started to see the commercials on TV for Essential, in addition to the online ads just started few days ago.
alexashka 9y ago
I don't get what problem this phone is solving. I think that's how everyone else feels too. We already have good phones by a number of other companies, and some of them actually cost a reasonable amount.
- sadlyNess 9y ago
  It's supposed to be a long-term purchase, which is how they will explain low sales volume. But this makes it hard when they'll want to release a better version of the phone. Or not. Not sure though about their long-term pricing strategy.
gue5t 9y ago
The Essential phone does nothing fundamentally new. The Librem 5, on the other hand, will if it gets crowdfunded: it'll be the first phone to not lock its users into the shitty app store paradigm where you rely on the manufacturer for a max of 2-3 years of support/security-updates while renting siloed closed-source programs that sell your usage data and show you ads. The Librem 5 will run regular Linux that keeps working until the hardware falls apart (and then some), that can be updated by anyone, not just the manufacturer, will have its kernel kept up-to-date via efforts of the entire community of Linux kernel developers, and will run applications that aren't rented and that respect their users. The Librem 5 will have open-source drivers and a non-Android operating system running a mainline Linux kernel (atop which Android compatibility is trivial if folks want to run that). Lots of HN readers have tech jobs and can afford to make history by crowdfunding: https://puri.sm/shop/librem-5/ https://puri.sm/shop/librem-5/
- 5ilv3r 9y ago
  I would but I can't tell if it makes phone calls or not. They only talk about "matrix", which sounds like some kind of tor phone thing.
  - gue5t 9y ago
    The copy could state more explicitly that it does work as a regular phone with your number and SIM, but it is explained under the section "A No-Carrier Phone?": The Librem 5 can be used in any of three ways: - With a cellular carrier provided phone number, data plan, and WiFi - With a cellular carrier data plan, and WiFi - With no carrier, and using only WiFi WiFi calling and VoIP calling will be able to be provided in WiFi or data plan modes. We expect to offer call-out, and call-in with phone numbers in all of these plans as well. If you still require a “traditional” phone number through a carrier and want to make unencrypted phone calls or messaging, it will be an option you can choose, but is not required (we recommend avoiding unencrypted phone calls).
    - deleted 9y ago
      [deleted]
jakef 9y ago
Who would buy this thing? The phone doesn't look to be anything special, the name makes it sound low-end, there's zero brand recognition. The magnetic wireless accessory thing is irrelevant to vast majority of consumers, especially since Bluetooth has already solved that problem and works with any device. I can't imagine a scenario where someone is looking to buy a phone in the ~$700 range and chooses this.
- celticninja 9y ago
  Plus as a modular phone it is incredibly difficult to repair so it fails its main purpose as far as I can tell.
- 201709User 9y ago
  Even Google bought HTC instead.
- blensor 9y ago
  I'm not sure we are talking about the same bluetooth here. I have yet to see a bluetooth device that just works (I am a non apple user, so I can't speak for IOS devices). The worst example are my wireless headphones. When I get into the car the car radio tries to connect to my phone, so it stops the wireless headphone output. I then have to scroll through the menu and disconnect the car radio, which tries to reconnect after a while. But that is not even the worst. If I have an audiobook playing while I connect the headphones the audio switches immediately to the headphones as soon as they are connected (which is the expected behavior). But if I start the audiobook after the headphones are connected it takes several minutes until I can actually hear something and I have not figured out a way to speed this up apart from disconnecting and reconnecting after I hit play. I for one love my wired headsets, they just work. But I have to buy some new ones every other month because I regulary rip them when they get caught up in something.
  - gumby 9y ago
    > I have yet to see a bluetooth device that just works (I am a non apple user, so I can't speak for IOS devices). Indeed, if you go all-in on Apple they really do "just work", and come pretty close when you use a non-Apple BT headset with Apple gear. I can't say if this is because the standards are inadequate and Apple does some extra work, or if the BT implementations on cheap hardware are simply terrible. I kinda lean to the latter, but really either could be true. > When I get into the car the car radio tries to connect to my phone, so it stops the wireless headphone output. BTW if you are in California it's a crime to have an earbud in both ears or cup headset covering both ears. You're unlikely to be stopped for that specifically, but if you get stopped for erratic driving, speeding, or have an accident the cops are quite willing to load that one on too, and in the case of an accident your insurance company may not cover you. So your car may have a crappy implementation (see my comment above) or it might be attempting to do the right thing.
wslh 9y ago
Selling is hard beyond any specific product criticism. Critics here in HN think it is more related to the product than to the marketing/selling aspects but 5000 are really few units sold.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
rrggrr 9y ago
Value. Early adopters recognize and act on it. This is how OnePlus succeeded with its first phone. No bloatware, great specs, fair price. Essential is about $250 too expensive. It would have been enough if they had released a cheaper phone with the same specs, branding anonymity, and durability - less the attachments. Value. Value. Value. This concept is key.
- DarronWyke 9y ago
  The attachment system would be a huge selling point if it gave it the ability to do significant improvements or upgrades to the unit. But so far it appears to be a novelty thing. If they released several addons at launch to show the versatility of the system, then they'd capture the market that wants modular phones. But they didn't. The specs are nothing spectacular. It's not as great, stats-wise, as my Oneplus 3T, though a titanium body is a better selling point than an aluminium one.
  - mustacheemperor 9y ago
    It's telling that the main attachment being advertised at launch is a 360 camera, but the phone doesn't support Daydream.
  - rrggrr 9y ago
    Yes, the Ti body almost had me. Give me this: a Ti body phone with replaceable CPU/Memory. Give me an heirloom quality phone (like the pocketwatch of old) that has strong utility for 5 - 10 years.
    - DarronWyke 9y ago
      Unfortunately modular phones haven't become a thing yet. Google tried that with Ara, but it's in indefinite hiatus. Of course, the next problem with making phones modular like that is a lack of standards. One developer makes the modules and keeps others from making them, thus entering the walled garden model.
bllguo 9y ago
A shame. It's missing too many features I'm interested in but it's definitely the nicest looking "flagship" Android phone imo
jasonkostempski 9y ago
https://www.essential.com/ https://www.essential.com/ I'm sick of articles about products with no links to the official product site.
- jccooper 9y ago
  I haven't decided if "journalists" haven't embraced the fact that they're on the web yet or if they're trying not to link off site for SEO juice or just to keep people on their site.
  - mrgordon 9y ago
    If its for SEO they could just use rel="nofollow"
- jandrese 9y ago
  I thought their site was broken. It was just a big black box. I had to scroll down about 50 screens to see stuff, and parts of it were scrolling faster than others and it was just a big mess. Even if I were interested in the product the website is a complete turnoff.
foobaw 9y ago
I have higher hopes for their next phone. This first edition was way too basic for my taste. It also showed a lack of experience in dealing with camera. With the funding they have, I'd rather have them do some sort of acqui-hire over an OEM rather than just hiring a bunch of MBA / former Google employees. They should realize that making a good phone requires years of experience by now.
bronson 9y ago
In my phone I want a good camera and a reasonable price. The Essential misses on both. (they say a software update will improve the camera, we'll see)
thinkythought 9y ago
This is going to be a great budget phone when it's getting cleared out on various sites for $3-400 early to mid next year. At $700 it just can't compete, especially with a mediocre camera, but once it drops under $500 then it'll be a lot cooler than most of the stuff in that price range. I tried one out, and it's not a hunk of junk in any way... it just doesn't do anything to wow you at that price besides the screen. And it screams "brand that will push one big update if that then quit making phones"

79 points by rexbee 9y ago

Trying to break in to the high end of the smartphone market as a newcomer is a mistake. That's Apple and Samsung's territory, and they have the muscle to fight you intensely for it. The Chinese manufacturers have the better idea: start with cheap phones, build a user base, and move up. In particular, the camera is the ace in the hole that the established players have. People spending $700 on a phone expect a top-notch camera, and from the reviews it sounds like the Essential Phone isn't cutting it. Unfortunately the camera is the main reason why there won't be any Cinderella stories about new high-end phone makers: Apple, Google and Samsung probably have teams of hundreds working on camera software now that the low-hanging fruit has been plucked, and new companies can't hope to match that.

X86BSD 9y ago
Keep in mind Apple was in the same position before the iPhone. Remember what palm said about apple becoming a player in the mobile space? "PC guys are not just going to walk in here and.." And yet they did. How about the phone just sucks? And essential just really has no idea what people want?
- khazhoux 9y ago
  Palm got upended because their product was not actually that great. It solved a need, for sure, but the core quality was not there. What is iPhone bad at? Where's the entry point for a disruptor?
  - ovao 9y ago
    One could argue that the iPhone is bad at 'openness', but that seems to be a non-factor or at least a negligible factor to at least some very large percentage of consumers.
  - allenbrunson 9y ago
    > What is iPhone bad at? ecosystem lock-in, not allowing un-vetted apps to run, walled-garden approach to everything. based on comments i see here, some people are mad enough about this to avoid iPhones altogether. that's where i'd start, if i were trying to launch a smartphone platform today.
    - Synaesthesia 9y ago
      One can basically level the same charges against Android, and indeed the entire tech industry for having closed source chips, firmware, baseband etc. It’s unfortunate that we’re all so beholden to corporate behemoths and that we don’t have a totally, top-to-bottom free, open and democratic hardware&software in technology.
    - dmitriid 9y ago
      A very wrong and a very short-sighted approach. Other comments have already pointed this out. Two things: - ease of use - privacy These two may sell the product even if it lacks certain features. - ecosystem (as in "do I have an app for that?") This is essential (pun intended), but Essential is already running Android, so they are covered there.
    - bm1362 9y ago
      These things allow iOS to remain relatively secure for end-users while Android continues to be a wasteland of exploits. I'd argue I want my phone to be as secure as possible, more so than my laptop, since it is my authenticator for most of my services. Most end users are satisfied with their iOS devices and don't try and use it as a ssh machine or toolkit. They install Candy Crush and some Google apps at most.
    - xenadu02 9y ago
      And when someone's phone ends up with spyware, bitcoin miners, and they're signed up for 12 different $10/month "premium" SMS text services do you believe they'll be happy to be outside the walled garden? I consider myself a nerd and I find it amazing that some of my fellow nerds learned absolutely nothing from IE and ActiveX: Users will always click Yes/OK/Install/Please_own_me. Providing an "Allow side-loading" checkbox guarantees these people will get completely and utterly owned. The latest free-to-play game will promise a "Chest of Gems" if they check the checkbox. Some spyware purveyors and scummy ad networks are even now prompting iOS users to install mobile provisioning profiles and the users willingly tap through multiple prompts to install them despite the scary warnings! These users end up with MITM VPN profiles installed that redirect all traffic or get extra spam email accounts setup. I enjoy having a gatekeeper that keeps most of the riff-raff out. I haven't always agreed with the decisions but I've never been secretly signed up for a premium SMS plan, had a coin miner installed, had my browsing history or contacts harvested, etc.
  - outside1234 9y ago
    It is behind in terms of what's possible. It just added wireless charging for example. The iPhone X may be their solution to that: charge a super premium price to essentially leapfrog to the next generation and thereby keep the volumes low so they can do things that don't yet scale.
snaky 9y ago
'start with cheap, build a user base (and also expertise, people and money flow), and move up' is a common strategy for most of newcomers of any market, the IT history give us IBM mainframes to DEC minis to SUN workstation to IBM personal computers as example.
david-cako 9y ago
And that's the thing, the OnePlus One was both "cheap" as well as incredibly high-value in terms of features and performance.
s73ver_ 9y ago
Isn't that what Tesla did, though?
- majormajor 9y ago
  No, basically nobody had expensive luxury electric cars before Tesla. This is more what Faraday Future was trying to do - be late to the game and copy, maybe change a few details to try to marginally improve it. What Tesla did is more like what Apple did - massively expand the "smart phone" segment in the first place. If you compare the Essential phone to a V30, S8, or Pixel, there's nothing anything near the difference of comparing an iPhone to a Nokia N95. Something that is so compelling it makes you not care about the other things the iPhone doesn't have that the Nokia does, like GPS and 3G. Similarly the Model S vs a 7 series: one has more bells and whistles, one is a fundamentally different product that a lot of people not very interested in the old option find much more compelling.
  - s73ver_ 9y ago
    "No, basically nobody had expensive luxury electric cars before Tesla." But high end luxury cars were a thing. Tesla wasn't competing with just electric cars, they were competing with all cars.
    - zaroth 9y ago
      Not initially, no. The all electric drive-train and buying into the future was always the key hook for early adopters. I think a large part of early demand was not because it was the best car for the money, but because it was special, unique, and you believed in Tesla the company and wanted it to succeed.
    - jandrese 9y ago
      Tesla would have gone precisely nowhere with a mass market luxury gas burner. Established brands had that market pretty much locked up and beating them on quality when starting from scratch is basically impossible. Small players in this market have to go to the ultra-niche extremes where you sell like 20 cars a year for millions of dollars per and usually still lose money. The electric drive was the killer feature on the Tesla. Without it the car has no reason to exist. Also, by luxury car standards the interior of a Tesla is absolutely subpar. They were competing against cars with handcrafted mahogany dashboards and precision stitched leather seats where people will spend hours and days fine tuning the static and moving resistance on the heater control knob to get it just perfect.
Feniks 9y ago
Has anyone been able to break into the smartphone market lately? I can't imagine beating Xiaomi, Samsung, Apple and the other big billion dollar conglomerates this late in the game without a significant Nobel prize worthy idea.
- la_oveja 9y ago
  OnePlus has become a pretty big player from zero.

RcouF1uZ4gsC 9y ago

I wonder if the name also hurts. When I see the word "Essential" I think "basic/stripped-down". When I see the price of $699 for an "Essential phone", I think that I might as well get an Apple iPhone, Samsung Galaxy, or Google Pixel.

svachalek 9y ago
It's also at odds with the gadgety stick-on camera. I don't think I've ever seen anyone use an add-on camera lens with their phone, much less the black sweater crowd they seem to be calling out with the "Essential" name.
snaky 9y ago
Absolutely. Even meaningless random word (like AQVN or something), would be better.
tryingagainbro 9y ago
Great point, even though I doubt it hurt. The price self-selects people: Ooopps, apparently no my cup of tea @$900 and back to google search. The "essential" bracket cannot compete with Chinese low-end phones. Oh well, he'll raise money and do something else. The domain name at least will have some resale value.

obilgic 9y ago

I just started to see the commercials on TV for Essential, in addition to the online ads just started few days ago.

alexashka 9y ago

I don't get what problem this phone is solving. I think that's how everyone else feels too. We already have good phones by a number of other companies, and some of them actually cost a reasonable amount.

sadlyNess 9y ago
It's supposed to be a long-term purchase, which is how they will explain low sales volume. But this makes it hard when they'll want to release a better version of the phone. Or not. Not sure though about their long-term pricing strategy.

gue5t 9y ago

The Essential phone does nothing fundamentally new. The Librem 5, on the other hand, will if it gets crowdfunded: it'll be the first phone to not lock its users into the shitty app store paradigm where you rely on the manufacturer for a max of 2-3 years of support/security-updates while renting siloed closed-source programs that sell your usage data and show you ads. The Librem 5 will run regular Linux that keeps working until the hardware falls apart (and then some), that can be updated by anyone, not just the manufacturer, will have its kernel kept up-to-date via efforts of the entire community of Linux kernel developers, and will run applications that aren't rented and that respect their users. The Librem 5 will have open-source drivers and a non-Android operating system running a mainline Linux kernel (atop which Android compatibility is trivial if folks want to run that). Lots of HN readers have tech jobs and can afford to make history by crowdfunding: https://puri.sm/shop/librem-5/ https://puri.sm/shop/librem-5/

5ilv3r 9y ago
I would but I can't tell if it makes phone calls or not. They only talk about "matrix", which sounds like some kind of tor phone thing.
- gue5t 9y ago
  The copy could state more explicitly that it does work as a regular phone with your number and SIM, but it is explained under the section "A No-Carrier Phone?": The Librem 5 can be used in any of three ways: - With a cellular carrier provided phone number, data plan, and WiFi - With a cellular carrier data plan, and WiFi - With no carrier, and using only WiFi WiFi calling and VoIP calling will be able to be provided in WiFi or data plan modes. We expect to offer call-out, and call-in with phone numbers in all of these plans as well. If you still require a “traditional” phone number through a carrier and want to make unencrypted phone calls or messaging, it will be an option you can choose, but is not required (we recommend avoiding unencrypted phone calls).
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]

jakef 9y ago

Who would buy this thing? The phone doesn't look to be anything special, the name makes it sound low-end, there's zero brand recognition. The magnetic wireless accessory thing is irrelevant to vast majority of consumers, especially since Bluetooth has already solved that problem and works with any device. I can't imagine a scenario where someone is looking to buy a phone in the ~$700 range and chooses this.

celticninja 9y ago
Plus as a modular phone it is incredibly difficult to repair so it fails its main purpose as far as I can tell.
201709User 9y ago
Even Google bought HTC instead.
blensor 9y ago
I'm not sure we are talking about the same bluetooth here. I have yet to see a bluetooth device that just works (I am a non apple user, so I can't speak for IOS devices). The worst example are my wireless headphones. When I get into the car the car radio tries to connect to my phone, so it stops the wireless headphone output. I then have to scroll through the menu and disconnect the car radio, which tries to reconnect after a while. But that is not even the worst. If I have an audiobook playing while I connect the headphones the audio switches immediately to the headphones as soon as they are connected (which is the expected behavior). But if I start the audiobook after the headphones are connected it takes several minutes until I can actually hear something and I have not figured out a way to speed this up apart from disconnecting and reconnecting after I hit play. I for one love my wired headsets, they just work. But I have to buy some new ones every other month because I regulary rip them when they get caught up in something.
- gumby 9y ago
  > I have yet to see a bluetooth device that just works (I am a non apple user, so I can't speak for IOS devices). Indeed, if you go all-in on Apple they really do "just work", and come pretty close when you use a non-Apple BT headset with Apple gear. I can't say if this is because the standards are inadequate and Apple does some extra work, or if the BT implementations on cheap hardware are simply terrible. I kinda lean to the latter, but really either could be true. > When I get into the car the car radio tries to connect to my phone, so it stops the wireless headphone output. BTW if you are in California it's a crime to have an earbud in both ears or cup headset covering both ears. You're unlikely to be stopped for that specifically, but if you get stopped for erratic driving, speeding, or have an accident the cops are quite willing to load that one on too, and in the case of an accident your insurance company may not cover you. So your car may have a crappy implementation (see my comment above) or it might be attempting to do the right thing.

wslh 9y ago

Selling is hard beyond any specific product criticism. Critics here in HN think it is more related to the product than to the marketing/selling aspects but 5000 are really few units sold.

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

rrggrr 9y ago

Value. Early adopters recognize and act on it. This is how OnePlus succeeded with its first phone. No bloatware, great specs, fair price. Essential is about $250 too expensive. It would have been enough if they had released a cheaper phone with the same specs, branding anonymity, and durability - less the attachments. Value. Value. Value. This concept is key.

DarronWyke 9y ago
The attachment system would be a huge selling point if it gave it the ability to do significant improvements or upgrades to the unit. But so far it appears to be a novelty thing. If they released several addons at launch to show the versatility of the system, then they'd capture the market that wants modular phones. But they didn't. The specs are nothing spectacular. It's not as great, stats-wise, as my Oneplus 3T, though a titanium body is a better selling point than an aluminium one.
- mustacheemperor 9y ago
  It's telling that the main attachment being advertised at launch is a 360 camera, but the phone doesn't support Daydream.
- rrggrr 9y ago
  Yes, the Ti body almost had me. Give me this: a Ti body phone with replaceable CPU/Memory. Give me an heirloom quality phone (like the pocketwatch of old) that has strong utility for 5 - 10 years.
  - DarronWyke 9y ago
    Unfortunately modular phones haven't become a thing yet. Google tried that with Ara, but it's in indefinite hiatus. Of course, the next problem with making phones modular like that is a lack of standards. One developer makes the modules and keeps others from making them, thus entering the walled garden model.

bllguo 9y ago

A shame. It's missing too many features I'm interested in but it's definitely the nicest looking "flagship" Android phone imo

jasonkostempski 9y ago

https://www.essential.com/ https://www.essential.com/ I'm sick of articles about products with no links to the official product site.

jccooper 9y ago
I haven't decided if "journalists" haven't embraced the fact that they're on the web yet or if they're trying not to link off site for SEO juice or just to keep people on their site.
- mrgordon 9y ago
  If its for SEO they could just use rel="nofollow"
jandrese 9y ago
I thought their site was broken. It was just a big black box. I had to scroll down about 50 screens to see stuff, and parts of it were scrolling faster than others and it was just a big mess. Even if I were interested in the product the website is a complete turnoff.

foobaw 9y ago

I have higher hopes for their next phone. This first edition was way too basic for my taste. It also showed a lack of experience in dealing with camera. With the funding they have, I'd rather have them do some sort of acqui-hire over an OEM rather than just hiring a bunch of MBA / former Google employees. They should realize that making a good phone requires years of experience by now.

bronson 9y ago

In my phone I want a good camera and a reasonable price. The Essential misses on both. (they say a software update will improve the camera, we'll see)

thinkythought 9y ago

This is going to be a great budget phone when it's getting cleared out on various sites for $3-400 early to mid next year. At $700 it just can't compete, especially with a mediocre camera, but once it drops under $500 then it'll be a lot cooler than most of the stuff in that price range. I tried one out, and it's not a hunk of junk in any way... it just doesn't do anything to wow you at that price besides the screen. And it screams "brand that will push one big update if that then quit making phones"